Submitting a media recording or a file upload

Due Sunday by 23:55 Points 45 Submitting a media recording or a file upload
Available 2 Mar at 1:00 – 31 May at 23:55 3 months
Submit Assignment
Due Date
• 3R: Written Report: 31 May 2020 @ 23:55
• 3P: Presentation Map: (as Appendix in the 3R report)
Weighting
45% comprising 2 parts:
• Part 1: (3R): 35% Written Report
• Part 2:(3P): 10% Presentation Map – attach as Appendix in the 3R Report
Word Count
• Part 1: (3R): Written Report – 4,000 words
• Part 2: (3P): Maximum 13 Frames ( see Template)
Learning
Outcomes
1: Synthesise a body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in the
field of managing people.
2: Utilise cognitive and communication skills that demonstrate your mastery of theoretical knowledge
and critical reflection on theory and professional practice.
3: Apply creativity and initiative to new situations in professional practice and further learning.
4: Demonstrate a high level of personal autonomy and accountability in your professional practice.
Rubric: Marking
Criteria
The Rubric, provided below, details the marking criteria for each grade level. Feedback will be
provided through the rubric and written comments.
Details of the range of grades awarded is in the Course Guide.
You may request a review of an assessment result or appeal a final
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/rights-and-responsibilities/appeals) course
grade (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/rights-andresponsibilities/appeals) in accordance with the Conduct of Assessment and Appeals section of the
Assessment processes. Further details regarding the review of assessment are detailed in the
Course Guide.
• Click here (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/results/higher-education-results) to find out how to access your results and understand
your grades.
Task
Part 1: 3R In teams of 4 members, each team will analyse a business case study reflecting a
real-world scenario, as well as reflecting on their effectiveness as a team.
• The final group report will analyse the case study utilising key insights from the scholarly
and professional literature.
Part 2: 3P A Presentation Map (maximum 13 frames) that summarises the range of solutions
and recommendations for short-term implementation from the analysis in the 3R report.
GUIDELINES: Click here for
• the case study
• To reference the case study:
Case Study, 2020. “The Australian Banking Sector”. BUSM1162 course, RMIT University,
Melbourne.
• detailed guidelines on the assessment requirements and structure of the report.
• Case Study Study Map
• Equity of Contribution Policy
• 3R Title Page
• 3P Presentation Map – attach to Appendix in the 3R Report
• Example of a case study report that received a Credit grade
• Marking Rubric
• Scholarly Article: Background Reading: 2016 Montague et al Crisis of confidence in
HRM of Australian banks.pdf
Format:
• 3R: Report style (https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/reports-0)
• 3P: Presentation Map Template
• Click here for information on writing skills
(https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/writing-skills)
Submission
Instructions
• Electronic submission: guidelines (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/studentessentials/assessment-and-exams/assessment/submitting-assessments-in-canvas) for
submission of the assignment can be found through this link (click here)
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/submitting-assessments-in-canvas)
• When you submit work for assessment, you must include a declaration of authorship. Click
here (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/assessment-declaration) to access information regarding the Assessment
Declaration (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/assessment-declaration)
Before you submit your assignment undertake the following:
1. Nominate 1 group member only to submit the assignment on the group’s behalf.
• Advise your tutor who the nominated person is.
2. Format -Word documents only – pdf submissions will not be marked
3. Attach a completed Title Page to the front of the assignment
• all group members must declare the % of contribution and sign the Title page – electronic
signatures are acceptable
4. Criteria – Use the Study Support services (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/studysupport) to check your assignment meets the Rubric criteria

5. Reference check that you have applied the RMIT Harvard
(https://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/easy-cite/) (or Harvard if you are using EndNote) referencing style
6. Check for plagiarism (https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/academic-integrity
harvard) and similarity through Turnitin
• see the Assignment submission link in Canvas
(%24CANVAS_OBJECT_REFERENCE%24/assignments/i7721d4888d596a753c9293a2a7bdbbfa
. You can submit your paper multiple times through Turnitin. The last submission will be the copy
that will be marked.
7. Keep a record or screenshot of your submission time in case this is queried by your tutor.
You can expect to receive marks and feedback on in-course assessment work after the overall final
course results have been approved by the Course Advisory Committee.
• This process is generally not completed before Week 17.
Students demonstrate academic integrity in their assessment practices by:
• engaging with assessment activities in an honest way;
• providing accountability for the authorship and originality of work submitted;
• acknowledging the work of others and the re-use of original work.
Academic misconduct is addressed in accordance with the Student conduct
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/governance-and-management/policies/student-conduct-policy)
policy. (https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/governance-and-management/policies/student
conduct-policy) For further information see the Academic Integrity
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and-exams/academic-integrity)
website.
Extensions (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and
exams/assessment/special-consideration) are available for unforeseen circumstances of a short
term nature.
• Applications must be submitted to your tutor and /or coordinator at least one working day
before the due date of the assessment.
• Extensions can be approved for a maximum of one week (seven calendar days) past the
due date for an assessment. (Where students need an extension exceeding one week they
must instead apply for special consideration.)
Special consideration (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and
exams/assessment/special-consideration) is available for unexpected circumstances outside

Feedback
Academic
Integrity and
Misconduct
Extensions of
time & Special
Consideration

Assignment 3R + 3P: Group Report
students’ control. These include but are not limited to: unexpected short-term ill health, and
unavoidable family, work, cultural or religious commitments.
• An application for special consideration is made in advance of an assessment wherever possible
but will normally be accepted within five working days after the assessment date.
• For more information, see the Special Consideration page
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/special-consideration) of the RMIT website.

CriteriaRatings Pts
12.0 pts
10.0 pts
12.0 to >9.6 Pts
High Distinction
Comprehensive
and critical
analysis of key
issues from the
case study.
Linking issues
from a range of
topics with high
level analysis and
evaluation.
Theory, evidence
and scholarly
references are
integrated into the
analysis at an
advanced level. A
range of key
concepts,
theories, and
literature relating
to the issues
identified in the
case have been
applied.
9.6 to >8.4 Pts
Distinction
Very good
analysis and
evaluation. of
key issues from
the case study.
Deeper critical
analysis would
have enhanced
the overall
analysis in
sections.
Evidence of
linking issues
from a range of
topics. A range
of key concepts,
theories, and
literature relating
to the issues
identified in the
case have been
applied at a
competent level.
8.4 to >7.2 Pts
Credit
Good evidence of
analysis of key
issues from the
case study, with
sections that are
descriptive. More
critical analysis and
evaluation of key
issues is required
for a higher grade.
Theory, evidence
and scholarly
references are
sufficiently
integrated into the
analysis.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
7.2 to >6.0 Pts
Pass
Borderline and
limited analysis of
key issues from the
case study; some
gaps in addressing
key issues and
more analysis and
evaluation is
required for a higher
grade; largely
descriptive. Theory,
evidence and
scholarly references
are integrated into
the analysis at a
basic level.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
6.0 to >0 Pts
Fail
Too brief; inability to
identify and analyse
key issues from the
case study;
superficial analysis;
insufficient
knowledge or
understanding of
the topic; much
irrelevant material.
Theory, evidence
and scholarly
references are not
sufficiently
integrated into the
analysis.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
10.0 to >9.14 Pts
High Distinction
You’ve
demonstrated very
effective analytical
and evaluative
skills through your
report. You have
given a diverse
range of
perspectives
drawing on the
literature, showing
evidence of your
ability to draw a
deep
understanding of
the core issues.
Evidence of
extensive scholarly
research beyond
sources that were
provided to inform
the analysis. The
report
demonstrates a
comprehensive
and critical
understanding of
9.14 to >7.0 Pts
Distinction
A range of
literature relating
to the case study
has been applied.
Demonstrates a
good
understanding of
a range of
perspectives
drawing on the
literature showing
evidence of your
ability to draw a
competent
understanding of
the core issues.
However more
refined use of the
literature is
required to
achieve a higher
grade. There is
evidence of
scholarly
research to
inform the
analysis, but the
7.0 to >6.0 Pts
Credit
An adequate range
of key concepts
and/or theories
from the literature
have been applied.
Some description in
parts. Your
application of the
literature
demonstrates that
you are developing
your ability to
synthesise and
integrate the key
ideas from different
writers, but more
work is needed to
ensure the
literature is applied
more effectively.
Evidence of
scholarly research
but the report has
applied an
insufficient number
of recent credible
resources either in-
6.0 to >5.0 Pts
Pass
In general, this
report
demonstrates a
reasonable attempt
at using the
literature for the
analysis, although
at times you have
described rather
than analysed the
core issues that
arose in the
literature. However,
you need to work
more on integrating
and synthesising
the ideas rather
than summarising
one after the other.
A range of literature
relating to the topic
has been drawn
from the references
provided to you
and/or evidence of
additional sources
that you have
5.0 to >0 Pts
Fail
The coverage of
the literature about
the topic is
inadequate and
does not meet the
minimum
requirements as
detailed in the
assignment
guidelines. Your
understanding of
the key ideas and
theories presented
in the literature
indicates a lack of
research and is
vague, brief,
contains irrelevant
material. and/or is
incomplete. More
effective
application of the
literature in the
references is
needed to be
awarded a higher
mark.
COMPREHENSION
Identification and
critical analysis of key
issues from the case
study
EVIDENCE-BASED
ANALYSIS
Degree of
understanding and
effective application of
the literature
CriteriaRatings Pts
6.0 pts
the literature
relating to the
context of the case
study; excellent
application of the
literature.
report has mainly
applied sources
that were
provided. The
report
demonstrates a
competent
application of the
literature relating
to the context of
the case study.
text citations and/or
the reference list.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
researched
independently. The
literature is not
sufficiently applied
in some sections
throughout the
analysis.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
6.0 to >4.8 Pts
High Distinction
Viable solutions
and final
recommendations
are proposed
drawing on key
elements of the
analysis.
Justification for the
solutions is made,
applying
convincing and
comprehensive
evidence. The final
recommendations
are viable and
relates to the
context of the case
study.
Demonstrates a
high level of
understanding of
how to form
solutions and
recommendations
from the analysis.
4.8 to >4.2 Pts
Distinction
Solutions and final
recommendations
are proposed
drawing on key
elements of the
analysis and are
mostly viable.
Justification for the
solutions is made
but at a general
level. Mostly
convincing and
comprehensive
evidence has been
applied. The final
recommendations
are mostly viable
and relate to the
context of the case
study.
Demonstrates a
good
understanding of
how to form
solutions and
recommendations
from the analysis.
4.2 to >3.6 Pts
Credit
Solutions and final
recommendations
are proposed
drawing on key
elements of the
analysis and are
somewhat viable.
Justification for the
solutions is made
but at a basic level.
More convincing
and comprehensive
evidence could
have been applied
The final
recommendation is
somewhat viable
and relates to the
context of the case
study. Mostly
convincing and
comprehensive
evidence.
Demonstrates a
good
understanding of
how to form
solutions and
recommendations
from analysis.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
3.6 to >3.0 Pts
Pass
Borderline
understanding of
how to form
solutions and
recommendations
from analysis.
Some solutions
and final
recommendations
do not directly
relate to the
analysis, and / or
are not viable in
the context of the
case study.
Justification for the
solutions is poorly
made and/or at a
general level.
Recommendation
– use the
university study
services before
you submit your
next assignment. –
e.g. e.g. Study
Learning Hub,
English Language
Centre, Ask the
Library.
3.0 to >0 Pts
Fail
Limited
understanding of
how to form
solutions and
recommendations
from the analysis.
Many solutions
and final
recommendations
do not directly
relate to the
analysis, and / or
are not viable in
the context of the
case study.
Justification for the
solutions is poorly
made and lacks
convincing and
comprehensive
evidence.
Recommendation
– use the
university study
services before
you submit your
next assignment. –
e.g. e.g. Study
Learning Hub,
English Language
Centre, Ask the
Library.
SOLUTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Degree to which viable
solutions and final
recommendations have
been posed.
CriteriaRatings Pts
5.0 pts
2.0 pts
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
5.0 to >4.0 Pts
High
Distinction
Meets academic
requirements for
a report
structure with
numbered
headings and
sub-headings;
Executive
Summary; and
Table of
Contents.
Structure of the
report flows
logically. Well
constructed and
crafted piece of
work; a pleasure
to read. Clear
and fluent
writing.
4.0 to >3.5 Pts
Distinction
Meets academic
requirements for
a report
structure with
numbered
headings and
sub-headings;
Executive
Summary; and
Table of
Contents.
Structure of the
report flows
logically. Clear
and fluent
writing.
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
Credit
Meets academic
requirements for a
report structure with
numbered headings
and sub-headings;
Executive Summary;
and Table of
Contents. Structure
mostly flows
logically,with some
inconsistencies in
some sections.
Some evidence of
fluency in writing; no
obvious errors in
grammar and/or
syntax.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
3.0 to >2.5 Pts
Pass
Report mostly meets
academic
requirements with
some errors with
numbered headings
and sub-headings
and/or Executive
Summary; and Table
of Contents.. The
contents of each
section in the
structure lacks
logical flow and/or is
disjointed in places.
Demonstrates a
basic understanding
of rules of grammar
and syntax; sentence
and paragraphs;
minor/no spelling
errors.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services before
you submit your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
2.5 to >0 Pts
Fail
This report does not
meet academic
requirements as
detailed in the
assignment
guidelines with
errors in the
numbered headings
and sub-headings,
and/or the Executive
Summary; and/or
Table of Contents..
Structure is
disjointed and the
analysis does not
flow logically.
Multiple spelling
and/or grammatical
errors; poor syntax.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
2.0 to >1.6 Pts
High Distinction
High level of
consistency and
use of all
Harvard
referencing
guidelines in-text
and in reference
list. The
reference list
only contains
sources that are
applied in-text
and vice versa.
Evidence of
1.6 to >1.4 Pts
Distinction
Appropriate and
consistent use of
Harvard
referencing
guidelines in-text
and in the
reference list.
The reference list
only contains
sources that are
applied in-text
and vice versa.
Evidence of
scholarly
1.4 to >1.2 Pts
Credit
Consistent use of
Harvard referencing
guidelines; some
errors in applying
the Harvard style in
text and/or in the
reference list. The
reference list only
contains sources
that are applied in
text and vice versa.
References are
integrated in most
parts of the analysis.
1.2 to >1.0 Pts
Pass
Inconsistent,
application of
Harvard referencing
guidelines both in
text and/or in the
reference list. The
reference list
contains some
sources that are not
applied in-text
and/or vice versa.
Evidence of some
scholarly research
to inform the
1.0 to >0 Pts
Fail
Does not meet
minimum
referencing
guidelines; absence
of/extremely poor/
and or inconsistent
use of required
Harvard
referencing. The
reference list
contains sources
not applied in-text
and/or vice versa.
Recommendation –
STRUCTURE AND
WRITTEN
EXPRESSION
A clear and concise
writing style, correct
spelling and grammar
REFERENCING
Correct use of the
Harvard system of
citation
CriteriaRatings Pts
5.0 pts
3.0 pts
2.0 pts
extensive
scholarly
research beyond
sources that
were provided to
inform the
analysis.
References
integrated
throughout the
analysis at a very
high standard.
research to
inform the
analysis but
mainly used
sources that
were provided.
References are
integrated
throughout the
analysis.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
analysis but at a
basic level.
Recommendation –
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
use the university
study services
before you submit
your next
assignment. –e.g.
e.g. Study Learning
Hub, English
Language Centre,
Ask the Library.
5.0 to >4.0 Pts
Advanced
Advanced degree of
understanding and analysis of the
identified Solutions and
Recommendations. A succinct
informed Conclusion and Key
Insights – consistent with analysis
of the core themes in the Report.
Implications for management and
the sector were expressed at a
high standard .
4.0 to >2.5 Pts
Competent
Good degree of understanding and
analysis of the identified Solutions
and Recommendations which were
viable. Clear Conclusion and Key
Insights – consistent with analysis
of the core themes in the topic.
Implications for management and
the Sector were expressed at a
good standard but were
generalised in parts.
2.5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
Some degree of understanding of
the identified Solutions and
Recommendations but they
lacked viability. Some /all
Conclusion and Key Insights
lacked relevance to the core
themes in the Report. Implications
for management of the issues
raised were vague and not related
to any specific sector.
3.0 to >2.4 Pts
Advanced
Coherency and Flow were well
integrated and relevant to the
theme of the Case at an advanced
level. Ideas flowed coherently and
logically. The characteristics of a
corporate audience were
considered. Demonstrated high
level analysis of the issues raised
in the report. Creative original
responses to the case data. Able
to draw on additional information
to construct an informed response.
Clear summary of the applicability
of your key ideas for the sector.
2.4 to >1.5 Pts
Competent
Coherency and Flow were mostly
integrated and relevant to the
theme of the Case at a competent
level. Showed evidence that the
characteristics of a corporate
audience had been considered.
Showed good knowledge of the
issues raised in the report.
Responses succinct and fluent
with original insights evident.
Effective use of theoretical terms
and concepts in the response.
Clear summary of the applicability
of your key ideas for the sector.
1.5 to >0 Pts
No marks
Poor /disjointed coherency and
flow of ideas were poorly y
integrated and not all relevant to
the theme of the Case at an
unsatisfactory level. Short
responses that were essentially
descriptive and did not
demonstrate sufficient
understanding of the issues in the
report. Did not consider the
characteristics of an corporate
audience with the final reporting of
solutions and recommendations.
2.0 to >1.6 Pts
Advanced
Evidence of advanced knowledge
of the key issues in the case
data. Demonstrated high level
application of the issues raised in
the report. Advanced – very good
application of key ideas from the
references. Key points from the
Solutions in the report
1.6 to >1.0 Pts
Competent
Evidence of competent knowledge
of the key issues in the case data.
Demonstrated basic – good
application of the issues raised in
the report. Competent application
of key ideas from the references.
Points from the Solutions in the
report emphasised/and or some
1.0 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not demonstrate sufficient
understanding of the issues raised
in the case data. Poor application
of the issues raised in the report.
Lacks integration of key ideas from
the references. Points from the
Solutions in the report not
sufficiently emphasised with many
3P Presentation Map
Criteria 1
This criterion is linked
to a learning outcome.
Degree to which the
final Solutions,
Recommendations,
Conclusion and Key
Insights were
convincing
3P Presentation Map
Criteria 2
This criterion is linked
to a learning outcome
. Logical flow of ideas
3P Presentation Map
Criteria 3
This criterion is linked
to a learning outcome.
Ability to present ideas
in response to an
analysis

Total points: 45.0

CriteriaRatings Pts
emphasised. Provides references
throughout the presentation and
/or as a list at the end. Recent
references (2014 -2020) are
applied at a high standard.
gaps. References in all/some
sections of the presentation and /or
as a list at the end. Recent
references (2014 -2020) are
applied at a competent standard.
gaps. Few/no references in
all/some sections of the
presentation and /or as a list at the
end. Recent references (2014
-2020) are applied at a inadequate
standard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *